zimfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Guidelines For Promotion
Yep, we now making guidelines to become a chatmod, rollback, and admin! Guidelines for rollback: Polite Does not violate rules Been on wiki for a month Communicates with community? Professional Knows basic wiki code Has reverted edits before Cannot be own edits. After rollback: Should be very active Keep up work Reverting edits when needed Continues to behave correctly Votes *Agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC) *Definetley 18:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #Yes! [[User:NyanGirToastNinjaShadow|'Gir']] [[User talk:NyanGirToastNinjaShadow|'wants a sammich']] 23:29, November 10, 2012 (UTC) #Support. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:23, November 11, 2012 (UTC) Guidelines for chatmod: Enforces rules, both on chat and wiki frequently on chat nice, civil, even-tempered user Must not cause drama After Chatmod On chat a lot Still must not cause drama Enforces rules Do not sockpuppet or block for fun. Votes *Agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC) *Same 18:16, November 10, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #Agreed. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:23, November 11, 2012 (UTC) Guidelines for Sysop: Must be responsible Helps others Must frequently edit Must enforce rules Must have undone edits Must know above average wikicode Makes a good effort to help the wiki Communicates with other editors (sociable) Polite Has not been banned Been on wiki for 3 months After Sysop: Must communite with community Must be polite Must follow through on adminly duties Must continue to learn Above average wikicode Must help others Must enforce rules Votes *Agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC) *Well I think it depends on the severity of the ban (examples: if it is a misunderstanding, ban from someone who did it as a vandil type move), besides that I agree 18:19, November 10, 2012 (UTC) *Well how about this PG: If it's a mistake, and they've been banned from the wiki more than two days, we wipe that off their slate. Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 22:10, November 10, 2012 (UTC) #Support. Basically, the same things as rollback and several more things added. #I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to disagree with the "must not have been blocked" thing; people can change, learn from their mistakes. I'm a prime example! We shouldn't make a minor block become an eternal curse promotion-wise. If you eliminate that, then this will be OK. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:23, November 11, 2012 (UTC) ##I disagree doctor. Seriously, if you've been blocked for a perfectly good reason, why should we trust you're reliable enough for a promotion? :/ Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 00:29, November 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::Whoops, forgot to mention that. I agree with Doc's point, people can change, learn from their mistakes. Who knows? Some users could have done something by accident. Ir should be changed to no "severe history of blocks" which would be that the user has not been blocked for more than a period of three months, or something similar to that. However, if they have in fact been blocked, even a tiny one, it would take ages for them to regain our trust, even if they are doing a lot to help the wiki. ::::@ZF If we couldn't trust him then why would we promote him to bueracrat? 14:40, November 11, 2012 (UTC) :::::I agree with your point that it should take a long time for them to regain our trust. I think that, as long as they haven't been majorly blocked more than 3 times, and they have gone for an entire... I dunno, six months, a year?... without being blocked again, they should be eligible. That is, as long as they haven't done any intentional spam or vandalism. You see what I mean? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 14:58, November 11, 2012 (UTC) Doctor, how about this: If they have been banned for a reason like Vandalism, Spam or Sockpuppetry for more than 2 months, they are not eligible. However if it's something minor, like cursing, then no matter what, they are eligable. That good? --Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 15:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC) Sure. Seems OK. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 17:28, November 22, 2012 (UTC) Guidelines For Bureaucrat: Invite only Must be sysop Votes *Agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #Invite? As opposed to requesting? Didn't ZimFan request bureaucracy? I don't agree to this idea; it's just too impractical. #That was just so we would actually have a active bureaucrat. Other than that, we should really let it be Invite only. Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 00:30, November 11, 2012 (UTC) #So..... what's the result? --Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 15:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC) Getting user rights Another issue we have. We have talked about this many times, but we have never come to an agreement. So, we dump all of our ideas here and think about what works best. *My way is the user nominating themselves or another user suggesting that user be promoted, and then all the other Sysops, rollbacks, chatmods, and Bureaucrats discuss whether the user is a worthy candidate or not, and then majority rules. **For now, I think that there are enough admins, but we could use more rollbackers, since we only have PG and Conker with that access level here. Votes *I disagree. The user the other one's suggesting MUST agree, and yes, Rollbacks and Chatmods must agree on Rollback And chatmod status, but it should be just admins on Admin status. Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 22:46, November 10, 2012 (UTC) ::That sounds okay to me. ::Sounds great 22:04, November 11, 2012 (UTC)